Abstract
Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is associated with important health risk outcomes, including the development of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Measures of maximal or peak oxygen consumption (VO2) are the typical criterion methods for determining CRF; however, in clinical settings, these measures are impractical. We validated a clinically derived estimate of CRF against predicted maximal VO2 in a sample of healthy, midlife and older adult women (n = 188). Women completed a clinic evaluation (including treadmill testing), daily diaries about their physical activity, and additional clinical scales. Two models were tested. The first model calculated estimated cardiorespiratory fitness (eCRF) using assigned weights and regressed eCRF on predicted cardiorespiratory fitness (pCRF). The second model used sample-specific, empirical weights. Both models were tested twice, once with retrospective and once with daily diary physical activity reports. The model accounted for 34% of the variance in pCRF when using assigned weights and 41% of the variance in pCRF when using empirical weights. For age, body mass index, and resting heart rate, assigned and estimated weights were similar, but estimates for physical activity differed. There was little improvement in model fit between retrospective and daily diary measurements of physical activity when either assigned (R 2 = 0.32) or fitted weights (R 2 = 0.40) were used. Midlife and older women's CRF can be estimated from routinely collected clinical measures, demonstrating their utility.
Highlights
Measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is typically performed using ventilatory gas exchange, with the volume of oxygen consumed most often expressed relative to body weight per minute (VO2) either at submaximal or maximal exertion.[1]
The mean – standard deviation (SD) of the predicted maximal HR achieved during the submaximal graded exercise testing (GXT) was 86.2% – 6.2% when a sex-specific predictive maximal HR equation was employed.[11]
The model using assigned weights accounted for 35% of the variance in predicted cardiorespiratory fitness (pCRF); the model using sample-specific weights (Table 3) accounted for 42%
Summary
Measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is typically performed using ventilatory gas exchange, with the volume of oxygen consumed most often expressed relative to body weight per minute (VO2) either at submaximal or maximal exertion.[1]. Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is associated with important health risk outcomes, including the development of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Methods: We validated a clinically derived estimate of CRF against predicted maximal VO2 in a sample of healthy, midlife and older adult women (n = 188). Women completed a clinic evaluation (including treadmill testing), daily diaries about their physical activity, and additional clinical scales. The second model used sample-specific, empirical weights. Both models were tested twice, once with retrospective and once with daily diary physical activity reports. There was little improvement in model fit between retrospective and daily diary measurements of physical activity when either assigned (R2 = 0.32) or fitted weights (R2 = 0.40) were used. Conclusions: Midlife and older women’s CRF can be estimated from routinely collected clinical measures, demonstrating their utility
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
